Windows On ARM Users Need Browser Choice Too

Don't know why Mozilla isn't making a bigger deal about the iPhone/iPad browsers. Apple pretty clearly still holds a monopoly position, at the least a majority position, but their platform is locked down. But it's ok for Apple, but bad for Microsoft?<p>I have a bad feeling about Mozilla's prospects going forward. If the mobile platform "single" browser model is allowed to continue, they don't really have a place in that world.

Mozilla should make more fuss about this because it's important.<p>I see my family happily using Linux on their laptops because 80% of what they need is a browser. And Google with ChromeOS also thinks that a browser should, in time, be enough.<p>So, the fact that we have ecosystems being developed where there is only one blessed browser (be it Safari or IE) is a severe roadblock.<p>The browser isn't like another app, it's more like another kind of AppStore. If we accept the current situation, they will find a way to monetize that too and there will be no escape.

The key argument here is the same as Microsoft's previous issues with undocumented APIs. I think it's fairly clear that Microsoft wants Windows RT to be an iOS and Android competitor, not "Windows 8 on ARM". If you subtract the Classic mode from Windows RT it's in the same OS category as iOS, they just took a different approach to get there by basing it on their desktop OS.<p>The problem is that Microsoft has turned pretty much the entire Windows API into an undocumented API (AFAIK, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the technical details here) and completely locked it down so that they're the only ones that can use it. It's not necessarily simple to move a large program like IE or Office over to a new architecture, but it's going to be an order of magnitude easier to do so when you don't have to rewrite it to an entirely new API (in this case Metro) while you're at it. Yes, Firefox can still put out a Metro version, but I would imagine that it would be a significantly greater undertaking than if they had the ability to write to Classic.<p>The unfortunate thing here is that this isn't necessarily an underhanded plot by Microsoft. There are definitely some benefits to the more sandboxed-style apps pushed by iOS and Android vs. what you can do with a desktop OS, especially when it comes to non-powerusers that just want stuff to work. From that point of view the Classic mode in Windows RT really shouldn't even be there at all, but if you want something like Office on ARM anytime soon then it's probably the only option. The trouble is that Microsoft wants to provide the additional benefits of a few key Classic applications while also trying to avoid having the OS turn into a bunch of poorly-ported desktop applications and I'm not sure they can have it both ways.

This frankly isn't any different than my iPhone where no other browser can become the default!

I'm not sure why Microsoft wants to exclude other browsers from Windows RT. Since many people hate IE, wouldn't having more browser choice be a benefit? Mozilla or Google could probably offer a better browser on Windows RT than Microsoft. Does Micrsoft make much money off IE? Wouldn't it be a better value to focus on their comparative advantage creating operating systems to help others make the web browsers?<p>In the inevitable comparison to Apple: the iPad's browser resembles Safari, which a minority of computer users use, and has poor support for HTML5. If Mozilla could make Firefox for Windows RT, which would be the same browser many people are used to, and could potentially have better HTML5 performance on a tablet, would that not be an important advantage over Apple, at least for adoption among technical users?

With Microsoft's newfound love for HTML, this adds significant pressure to keep IE decent and updated regularly. IE10 is OK today but will be outdated in a year. Will IE11 ship within 12 months (from now, not Win8 RTM).<p>Otherwise MS has an OS emphasizing HTML, with a limping browser.<p>The ARM excuse is bogus.

To be fair, there is one element missing from history, 90% market share in tablets. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position on tablets which is essentially what Windows on ARM means.<p>It's interesting to note that on iOS there's no way to really replace Safari. Any links still open in Safari, no matter what else you've installed. Of course Apple does have a monopoly position on tablets.<p>I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be browser choice, just that danger is more Apple than Microsoft at this point. If Microsoft changed their policy today it would benefit almost no one, but if Apple changed their policy today it would benefit millions.

You know, every so often, a Stallman item or quote or something shows up on HN and there is much wailing and laughing and mocking and gnashing of teeth.<p>Folks feel ashamed of his words, are outraged at his lack of tact and manners, and constantly and publicly denounce him as an anachronism, an inconvenient throwback to the bad old days of the free software movement. We drink beers, sip coffee, hack web apps, compare term sheets, and chuckle at this old goofball.<p>And then shit like this happens.<p>And you know what? Maybe he's right to be that crazy, and maybe we're wrong to be so dismissive and consider him so alarmist, and maybe everyone should take a good, hard look at what we value in tech and what we can do to protect it.

Given that right now there are already two more popular (extant) choices, iPad and Android Tablets, I fail to see how this is an issue.<p>Back in the day when Microsoft got in trouble you couldn't really argue it was feasible to get a PC without Windows.

There is actually nothing preventing anyone from writing a browser for windows on arm. The issue is that the API makes it inconvenient for existing browsers to be ported.<p>I've written a proof of concept HTML to WPF parser/renderer that worked fine inside WinRT. It wadls written in c# which is where the issue is I think...

When you don't have an OS choice (in order for a tablet to be approved for Windows 8 ARM), browser choice is the least of your worries.

This is unforgivable: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/windows-8s-locked-bootloaders-much-ado-about-nothing-or-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/window...</a><p>Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader. The concessions you might have read about are for secure boot on other systems.<p>They also have been threatening Linux distributors with patent infringement lawsuits. Every ARM phone has a windows license paid for it, it's just not installed.<p>This is truly the sign of desperation and insanity. Once you get scared of the competition that much, you might as well show yourself to the door.<p>I want to make myself clear: Microsoft has done great things. But now; well now they are finally having to bleed. And we, the customers and competition, are going to see just how fearsome a desperate, dying cornered animal it truly is.<p>That patent library and legal team aren't going to go unused...